Delhi High Court
Jyoti & Anr. vs Deepak Panchal on 18 October, 2023
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 18.10.2023
+ CRL.REV.P. 1111/2023
JYOTI & ANR ..... Petitioner
versus
DEEPAK PANCHAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Dubey and Mr. Tarun Garg,
Advocates
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CRL.M.A. 28582/2023
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P. 1111/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28583/2023 (Delay)
3. This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 read
with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the order dated 19.04.2023
passed by learned Judge, Family Court-01, Shahdara, Karkardooma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:21.10.2023
15:25:10
Courts, Delhi in MT No. 733/2019 titled Jyoti & Anr vs. Deepak
Panchal, whereby under application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.,
1973, the learned Family Court though had allowed the interim
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner, however,
simultaneously declined to grant interim maintenance to the son of the
petitioner, on the ground that the son of the petitioner has not been
adopted by the respondent herein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places on record
over the bench, judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in
Rajiv Kumar Yadav vs. Manju Devi in MAT APP. (FC) No. 62/2023
which was rendered on 01.03.2023, whereby the learned Division Bench
had noted as under:-
"10. It is not in dispute that the appellant was
aware of the first daughter of the respondent from the
first marriage at the time when he solemnized the
marriage with the respondent. When a person
solemnizes a marriage with a person who already has
a child, said person shall be presumed to have
undertaken the responsibility of the child and also
cannot later be permitted to contend that the child is
not his/her responsibility."
5. On the query put by this Court, learned counsel fairly admits that
the present judgment was not placed before the learned Judge, Family
Court for its consideration.
6. He further submits that an application under Section 127(3)
Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking modification/clarification of the order has been
filed.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, this Court is of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:21.10.2023
15:25:10
considered opinion that rather than interfering in the impugned order at
the moment, keeping in view the fact that the judgment of learned
Division Bench, as aforesaid, was not placed before the learned Judge,
Family Court, it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case,
to direct learned Judge-01, Family Court to expeditiously dispose of the
application under Section 127 (3) Cr.P.C., 1973, filed by the petitioners,
after considering the ratio laid down by learned Division Bench in the
aforesaid judgment, preferably with a period of two months from the
date of communication of this order.
8. Learned counsel also submits that the arrears, if any, by way of
the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, be also
directed to be cleared by the respondent within a period of one month
from today.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition and pending application
stand disposed of.
10. A copy of order be sent to the concerned Court for information
and compliance.
11. Dasti.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
OCTOBER 18, 2023
Aj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:21.10.2023
15:25:10
